Intermediate fossils

[USincognito]

Ice core dating, first time i heard about it was in this thread....apparently still not accurate:
all i did is type in "ice core dating/ accuracy"...now, if it said completey accurate that would be nice but, like trees/carbon dating, a bunch of innacurate statments are made against it
http://www.flem-ath.com/icedate.htm
also keep in mind that if there was a flood...this could of tilted the Earths axis, thus changing temperatures.

Why don't you check out a scientific website like this one from the U.S. Geological Survey and learn something about the science before digging up pages by cranks.

Ice cores contain an abundance of climate information --more so than any other natural recorder of climate such as tree rings or sediment layers. Although their record is short (in geologic terms), it can be highly detailed. An ice core from the right site can contain an uninterrupted, detailed climate record extending back hundreds of thousands of years. This record can include temperature, precipitation , chemistry and gas composition of the lower atmosphere, volcanic eruptions, solar variability, sea-surface productivity and a variety of other climate indicators. It is the simultaneity of these properties recorded in the ice that makes ice cores such a powerful tool in paleoclimate research.

And without going all ad hoc on us, could you explain how Noah's Flood (which there isn't any evidence for) could have caused an Axial tilt?

 

[pyro214]

Why don't you check out a scientific website like this one from the U.S. Geological Survey and learn something about the science before digging up pages by cranks.

thanks for the site, beyond my understanding at the moment....not a fan of anything that has to do with chemistry. Hopfully someone with knowlege of chemistry etc... will be able to look it over, if not i may find some time later on.

By the way, juts because a source isnt "scientific" doesnt mean it can provide useful facts/information. A fact/idea is what it is..

And without going all ad hoc on us, could you explain how Noah's Flood (which there isn't any evidence for) could have caused an Axial tilt?

its added a great deal of mass to the earth in a short period of time...my dad said the other day it was possible so i restated what he said, doesnt mean its fact though.
The earths axis has tilted though. you can tell by simply looking at the geography of the earth. Desserts now adays have signs of large water ways passing through them...a tilt in the earth would drastically change the climate and therefore make some places hotter (no more streams/rivers), and others cooler (formation of glaciers).
These are only my thoughts, some sites suggest similar ideas or other varieties of how/proof that it happened.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Ice core dating, first time i heard about it was in this thread....apparently still not accurate:
all i did is type in "ice core dating/ accuracy"...now, if it said completey accurate that would be nice but, like trees/carbon dating, a bunch of innacurate statments are made against it
http://www.flem-ath.com/icedate.htm
also keep in mind that if there was a flood...this could of tilted the Earths axis, thus changing temperatures.

From their start page:

[SIZE=-1]When the Sky Fell. The Atlantis Blueprint. Atlantis in Antarctica.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Earth Crust Displacement. The Giza Prime Meridian. The Lost Island Paradise.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Rand Flem-Ath. Rose Flem-Ath. Thoth's Holy Chamber. Sun-Deluge Myths.

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Solar Typhoons. Lost Civilization of the Ice Age. Egyptian Map of Atlantis.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Antarctic Ice Sheet. Cocaine Mummies. Peopling of America. Plato.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The Einstein-Hapgood Correspondence. Mantle Displacements.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Errors in Ice Core Dating. Athanasius Kircher.[/SIZE]

That's exactly the selection of cutting egde research I would expect for my sources on geology.

its added a great deal of mass to the earth in a short period of time...my dad said the other day it was possible so i restated what he said, doesnt mean its fact though.
The earths axis has tilted though. you can tell by simply looking at the geography of the earth. Desserts now adays have signs of large water ways passing through them...a tilt in the earth would drastically change the climate and therefore make some places hotter (no more streams/rivers), and others cooler (formation of glaciers).
These are only my thoughts, some sites suggest similar ideas or other varieties of how/proof that it happened.

So where did the water go?

 

[FoeHammer]

.....

So where did the water go?

How big was the earth's ocean before the flood?
It could be that most of the water from the flood is still here and God brought the land out of the water as He did before...

Genesis 1
9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

FoeHammer.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

[The Flood] added a great deal of mass to the earth in a short period of time...my dad said the other day it was possible so i restated what he said, doesnt mean its fact though.

This would not add mass to the Earth. A flood is only a redistribution of water from one part of the planet to another; no new water is created.

The earths axis has tilted though. you can tell by simply looking at the geography of the earth. Desserts now adays have signs of large water ways passing through them...a tilt in the earth would drastically change the climate and therefore make some places hotter (no more streams/rivers), and others cooler (formation of glaciers).

Right effect, wrong reason. These effects were caused more by plate tectonics than by a change in the axis. The Earth's axis does change its tilt based on very long cycles, but it never does so in a sudden drastic way.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

How big was the earth's ocean before the flood?
It could be that most of the water from the flood is still here and God brought the land out of the water as He did before...

FoeHammer.

That is certainly a possible explanation, although

a) the Bible doesn't say anything about the continents rising

b) the Bible clearly says that the water "receded" and "dried up from off the earth". That's the opposite of what you claim.


(I have intentionally left out the geological impossibility of this happening, because you won't accept it anyway.)

 

[LittleNipper]

There are lots of transitional fossils. To fully understand just how many there are requires a lot of reading. Something that can be a problem when dealing with this topic is that if someone doesn't want to recognize what a transitional form is, they will never accept that they are. For example, if fossil A is found 300 meters down in the strata, and fossil E is found 40 meters down in the strata, i could say that E evolved from A, to which I would be asked to provide transitional fossils. So after much searching I find fossil C, which is 160 meters down and shows characteristics of both A and E. Follow me so far? Now someone could say, "But now you have two gaps, prove that A evolved into C, and that C evolved into E. So i search and search and eventually find fossil D, 100 meters down. It is a perfect example of characteristics between C and E. But someone could still say, "now you have 3 gaps, A to C, C to D, and D to E."

See how this could go on and on? This is why you should ask yourself how you would identify a transitional fossil and how many are sufficient evidence.

Anyways, let's take whale evolution as an easy to explain example. Whale's allegedly evolved as a part of the ungulate group (hooved terrestrial mammals). This was first put forward along with many other possible ancestors, but there was little evidence at the time. Now there are lots of fossils supporting the evolution from ungulates, while the other option that had been put forward are now laid to rest.

Sinonyx - wolf sized ungulate which also speciated into other modern day hooved mammals. It existed 60 million years ago.
Pakicetus - 52 million years ago.
Ambulocetus - 120 meters higher in the strata
Rodhocetus - 46-47 million years ago
Basilosaurus - 35-45 million years ago
Dorudon - about 40 million years ago

Both basilosaurus and dorudon are fully aquatic whales, and led to the whales we have today. Not only are these all sequential in features, but they are found in order in the strata layers.

For a lot more detail and other evidences for whale evolution, here is my source http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

The point of this post is to demonstrate that there are lots of intermediate fossils, but I can't be expected to go through them all so I'll just reference some of them for you with links.

Horse Evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/fhc.htm

Homonids - Human Evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html
http://www.becominghuman.org/

Vertabrae Evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

reptile-birds
reptile-mammals
ape-humans
legged whales
legged seacows
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates

various
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Transitional_fossils#Some_Examples_of_Transitional_Fossils
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/fossilhalls/vertebrate/

One can only wonder if anyone would consider the bones of a collie, an Irish setter, a Dalmation, etc..., as intermediate fossils of a Chihuahua?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How big was the earth's ocean before the flood?
It could be that most of the water from the flood is still here and God brought the land out of the water as He did before...

FoeHammer.

That could only happen if the extra mass was magically created, otherwise it would be a simple redistribution of the preexisting matter. And if you're willing to go to those explanations, then why not stick with 'godidit', and forgoe any naturalistic attempts?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

One can only wonder if anyone would consider the bones of a collie, an Irish setter, a Dalmation, etc..., as intermediate fossils of a Chihuahua?

Indeed they are. Why, from what do you think they evolved from?

Note also that philadiddle's dates vary by several hundred thousand years, whereas dating the bones of dog breeds would create almost homogenous dates. This would bely the sort of supporting evidence the fossils give to the equus evolutionary model.

 

[LittleNipper]

That is certainly a possible explanation, although

a) the Bible doesn't say anything about the continents rising

b) the Bible clearly says that the water "receded" and "dried up from off the earth". That's the opposite of what you claim.


(I have intentionally left out the geological impossibility of this happening, because you won't accept it anyway.)

Try reading in the Bible Job 38:4-11 Psalm 104:5-9

Psalm 104:8

The Mountains ascend, the valleys descend unto the place which thou founded for them.

 

[jwu]

From http://www.flem-ath.com/icedate.htm:

[SIZE=-1]I believe that ice core dating is dubious to say the least. It may very well be[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]accurate for up to five or six thousand years but beyond that time the global[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]weather patterns are not as uniform as such dating presumes. For example, the[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Sahara Desert which today is dry was moist and temperate prior to 5000 BC[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] (when the weathering of the Sphinx occurred according to John Anthony West[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] and Professor Robert Schoch). Moreover, even one extra warm summer day[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](at any date in the past) can melt decades if not centuries of ice thereby[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]destroying the accuracy of the ice core dating method. This is a relatively new[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]dating method which I believe cannot, even in principle, be a reliable means of[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]dating beyond 4000 BC. I have much more faith in radio-carbon dating because[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]the evidence is consistent around the world. The fact that Siberia had temperate adapted mammals (antelope, saber-toothed tigers, etc.) at the time of Atlantis[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](before 9600 BC) means that Lesser Antarctica must have been temperate[/SIZE]

Note that the author does not offer any evidence, just personal incredulty and estimations. And he is talking about Atlantis! C'mon, you cannot take that as a serious source. And the climate of Siberia has little to do with the climate of Antarctica.

Also note that even if layers at antarctica melted, this would not in any way save a young earth - after all, it implies that the layers are older than currently thought.

I may of not chosen the best of links but ive read some very informal data in the past....and also we both no that all of its not true, therefore carbon dating isnt 100% accuarte.

Of course it isn't 100% accurate, no-one claims it to be that good in first instance!
But to save a young earth an accuracy of about 0% would be required. Occasional bad results which reduce the accuracy to something like 99% aren't nearly enough to cast doubt on the vast majority of good results.

What is your explanation for the graph which i posted? Why do these methods agree with each other? After all, C14 dating has a completely different mechanism as lake varve formation. If both were flawed (a necessity for a young earth), why are they flawed in a way that produces agreeing results? Shouldn't they be wildly random instead, showing no correlation?

disagree,
carbon dating may, and im sure ive read this several times, be accurate only up to a couple thousand years. If your comparing it to layers or trees....you only prove it to be useful for a couple thousand years. Otherwise your just assuming that if it works within a couple thousand, why not a million. This is not true because of half life etc... is you disagree ill bring up some more facts.

This is a non-issue as after about 60,000 years there is no measurable carbon left anyway, so no-one even tries to calibrate C14 dating for longer than that.

which only prove it up to what....10k years? due to half life, the further you go the less consistant this method becomes. Half life is only one of the several things that effect this results significantly.

If you have evidence of changing half lifes, then please show it.

and let me guess, this old old tree is a guestimate?
Your probly using a fact thats like this, far from factual:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v...living_tree.asp

"This is clearly based on far more assumptions and uncertainties than tree-ring dating."
It appears that traditional tree-ring dating on any timber found growing at the site so far gives an age of no more than 4,000 years. This is well within the ages of the oldest living bristlecone pines, which have around 4,600 tree-rings and are still the world's oldest living organisms. (Bristlecone pines are native to the Rocky Mountains of the United States.)

Umm...there is a consistent tree ring record going back 13,000 or so years. If they have any arguments against it, then let's discuss it - but all i see is a blanket assertion from people with an agenda and who have explicitly stated that they will disregard anything that contradicts their preconceived ideas about the age of the earth.
And river varves show records for tens of thousands of years and even millions of years in case of Green River.

not exactly, even i could fake a picture like that....although im sure there are other cases were this has been done, maybe.

The picture is not the actual evidence...the bones are, and they are up for investigation.

type in, "carbon dating/inaccurate" or ''carbon dating/inaccuracy"
I may of not chosen the best of links but ive read some very informal data in the past...

Please, never argue "i read something on the web, so it is true". Anyone can write anything on the web and make all sorts of claims. I could make a website claiming that the sky is green. If a website brings up an argument, then we need to discuss it here. The mere existence of websites claiming things proves nothing. Especially not in case of things that people have an agenda about.

not like its a bad thing, some writers use this technique to further a point...maybe in this situation hes showing that animals that died a long time ago may of eaten fish....and results may be incorrect. Many dinosaurs did not eat marine life though, so this doesnt get him very far.

I don't think so. That website clearly has an agenda, casting doubt on C14 dating. By including that passage in his foot the author discredits his own point.

 

[FishFace]

they all use simlar methods, why wouldnt the results match up?

How do you explain that all the different isotopes match up, and where is the evidence that points towards something else?

which only prove it up to what....10k years?

Right, so we know isotope dating is accurate to at least 10k years. What reason do you give for supposing it suddenly changed before then? Note, also, that 10k years is enough to date things like egyptian artifacts, and show that there was no flood affecting egypt.

due to half life, the further you go the less consistant this method becomes. Half life is only one of the several things that effect this results significantly.

If the dating methods were affected by something, they would have to have been all affected in the same way, since they agree so well. What affected them, as you must suppose, and how come it didn't produce any deviations? We would not expect something that affected radioisotope dating to affect all isotopes the same.

Ice core dating, first time i heard about it was in this thread....apparently still not accurate:
all i did is type in "ice core dating/ accuracy"...now, if it said completey accurate that would be nice but, like trees/carbon dating, a bunch of innacurate statments are made against it

I don't think that's quite what you meant, but never mind!

The point is, we know what ice layers look like; they're being laid down yearly as we speak. We know that isotopic variations in the layers can also distinguish between summer and winter, and can give us further backup on how old they are. (Of course, for some reason, the isotope date of the layer is always the same or similar to the layer's number, increasing our confidence)

Given this, it is improbable that melting could be a significant factor in ice core inaccuracy. Note also that melting would indicate a much LOWER age than the actual age, so perhaps we should a few more thousand years onto the 120,000 figure.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

There is an old earth creationist site that has a good summary of calibration of 14C dates with lake varves and tree ring chronologies HERE. It also discusses ice cores and the correlation between 14C and U-Th dating of coral couplets. The table shows how all these observation serve to give fairly consistent dates for the end of a period of climate change called the Younger Dryas. BTW uncalibrated 14C dates usually give ages that are too young and not too old. Of course this has very little to do with dating of fossils earlier than the late Pleistocene.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

.



If the dating methods were affected by something, they would have to have been all affected in the same way, since they agree so well. What affected them, as you must suppose, and how come it didn't produce any deviations? We would not expect something that affected radioisotope dating to affect all isotopes the same.

Quite the opposite in fact. First it is very hard to change radioactive decay rates significantly under conditions that could naturally occur on earth (except possibly for Be7 which is not used for radiometric dating). Second consider two types of decay, beta decay and electron capture. Anything that speeds up beta decay significantly, such as high levels of ionization, should slow down electron capture and vise versa while probably having little or no effect on alpha decay.



F.B.

 

[FoeHammer]

That is certainly a possible explanation, although

a) the Bible doesn't say anything about the continents rising

Some might quote Psalm 104:8 (various versions) in response to this but I am a KJV (only) believer and in that version that passage is, in my view, somewhat ambiguous. I shall have to study it further.
However... God had originally called forth the land from the waters (Genesis 1:9), I don't think it unreasonable for me to assume that He did the same after the Noahic flood.

b) the Bible clearly says that the water "receded" and "dried up from off the earth". That's the opposite of what you claim.

As the land (earth) rose up the waters would have receded and the land (earth) would have dried up.

(I have intentionally left out the geological impossibility of this happening, because you won't accept it anyway.)

Try me.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

That could only happen if the extra mass was magically created, otherwise it would be a simple redistribution of the preexisting matter. And if you're willing to go to those explanations, then why not stick with 'godidit', and forgoe any naturalistic attempts?

What extra mass?

FoeHammer.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

they all use simlar methods, why wouldnt the results match up?
How do you explain that all the different isotopes match up, and where is the evidence that points towards something else

one of the interesting words that label an important idea in this topic is: consilience.
consilience is one of these big principles, the idea that lots of little pieces all pointing the same direction have a synergistic effect and the sum of them all is more persuasive and better evidence than just a few much bigger pieces pointing in the same direction.

take 4 pieces of data that are now being correlated:
C14 data
tree rings
pollen in lake varves
and trapped atmosphere in ice cores
(there are a few others like this, coral rings, other sedimentary processes other than lake varves, for instance sea floor debris but these are the big ones i have had the opportunity to read about)

what emerges from the big picture is:
C14 is now calibrated by tree ring data.
the 4 yield a remarkably similiar set of data back 12Kya with trees, and to the limit of C14=50Kya for ice core and lake varve data, these later two continue on to at least 100Kya themselves.

the big point is that these are not similiar methods at all. true the tree rings, lake varves and ice cores are process in time, historical year by year counting data, but what they are counting is not anywhere near the same (as radioactive dating is based on similar science)

i think that the synergism of just these few fields ought to be so persuasive to YECists that they either run and hide in an omphalos solution and take the philosophic hits that system does, or become some form of OEC. sticking to a straight YECist line that the earth is only 6kya in the face of these datum is simply intellectually irresponsible.

 

[ENominiPatri]

i think that the synergism of just these few fields ought to be so persuasive to YECists that they either run and hide in an omphalos solution and take the philosophic hits that system does, or become some form of OEC. sticking to a straight YECist line that the earth is only 6kya in the face of these datum is simply intellectually irresponsible.

And an argument for a deceptive god comes one step closer to validity.

 

[pyro214]

This would not add mass to the Earth. A flood is only a redistribution of water from one part of the planet to another; no new water is created.

neiher could such an accumilation of water build up in clouds in the first place? The flood itself is a miracle, this means the laws of the flood, as well as how the water disapeered after, do not have to be followed scientificly. yes, God did it in this case. Like i said, picking on events that happened at the time wont get us anywhere.

Right effect, wrong reason. These effects were caused more by plate tectonics than by a change in the axis. The Earth's axis does change its tilt based on very long cycles, but it never does so in a sudden drastic way.

very possible

dating the bones of dog breeds would create almost homogenous dates. This would bely the sort of supporting evidence the fossils give to the equus evolutionary model.

then again its microevolution....a change in characterstics of the animal, not a change in species (which is what would convince me).
Supports microevolutoin, yes. Supports macroevolution, not so much.

Note that the author does not offer any evidence, just personal incredulty and estimations. And he is talking about Atlantis! C'mon, you cannot take that as a serious source. And the climate of Siberia has little to do with the climate of Antarctica.

It stated commen sense...changes in weather patterns can effect the contents of a ice glacier. True, yes. Makes this valid source, yes.

Also note that even if layers at antarctica melted, this would not in any way save a young earth - after all, it implies that the layers are older than currently thought.

unless the dating methods are wrong :S
keep in mind i havnt looked over how they date it yet, no time yet.

so no-one even tries to calibrate C14 dating for longer than that.

what is used to determine the age of things over 60k years?

If they have any arguments against it, then let's discuss it

sounds legit to me, although a source of the 13k year tree/ river dating would be appreciated.

Please, never argue "i read something on the web, so it is true".

true, which is why you shouldnt accept everything you read. Although google assorts things in order from best to worst (i assume by the amount of times people go to the website). Considering this, the first several links are likley to have some good information...not in all cases of course. I do read through a page before posting it, if i agree with what it says...i use it as a source.

 

[USincognito]

One can only wonder if anyone would consider the bones of a collie, an Irish setter, a Dalmation, etc..., as intermediate fossils of a Chihuahua?

One could wonder that, if we were finding terrestrial collies, semi-aquatic Dalmatians and fully aquatic Chihuahuas with long fluked tails and vestigial legs or if we found Irish Setters with 3 jaw bones and bulldogs with only 1 and a modified middle ear or a Kommandeur with 5 toes, a Bassett with 4 toes a Beagle with 3 toes and a Scottie with 1 toe*.

You really need to brush up on your Paleontology because the differences that make these species transitionals are more than just size.

* Test for Nip, each of my hypotheticals relates back to one of the lineages cited in Phil's post. Can you tell me which relates to which?